On December 31, 2008, the Defendant acquired the claim for the above loans of IMD Co., Ltd. against the Plaintiff, and on September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2016 tea5981, and on September 27, 2016, “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 65.7% per annum from September 11, 2007 to March 21, 2008; 27.74% per annum from the following day to the delivery date of the authentic copy of the payment order; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”). [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, and each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3] 2. The party’s assertion and its determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s claim for the amount of money transferred to the Plaintiff was more than five years after the lapse of five years from October 2007, and that enforcement based on the instant payment order should not be denied, and that the instant payment order became final and conclusive on December 2016, and that the Seoul Eastern District Court did not raise any objection against the Plaintiff in the case of a non-performance list of defaulterss, etc., and that the extinctive prescription was interrupted.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s claim for loans against the Plaintiff by MwonD Co., Ltd. constitutes a claim arising out of commercial activities, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription period is applied pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s claim for the instant payment order was filed on October 2016, which was five years after the date when the payment due was due due, due to the Plaintiff’s delayed loss of the benefit of payment due to its delay. Therefore, the Defendant’s transfer to the Plaintiff of MwonD Co.